Saturday, March 5, 2016

The American Religion and Politics in 2016

The
American Religion and Politics in 2016

By Rudy
Barnes, Jr., March 6, 2016

The
American religion is an amalgam of religious and secular values that have
evolved over the years into a diverse hodgepodge of religions, most of which
claim to be Christian. This fragmentation
of religion was precipitated by advances in knowledge, reason and the
libertarian political concepts of the Enlightenment, which challenged traditional
religious doctrines and created a backlash of religious fundamentalists who
considered advances in knowledge and reason a threat to their traditional beliefs. More recently, an increasing number of Nones have disavowed any religious
preference for individualized spiritual faith.

Fundamentalist
Christians known as evangelicals now make up approximately 50% of GOP voters
and support right-wing candidates who share their traditional values, which
include the prohibition of abortion, the condemnation of homosexuals, and
opposition to immigration. Their
“Christian” values are an anomaly since they were never taught by Jesus, as is their
support of Donald Trump, whose misrepresentation of the truth, bullish megalomania,
bigotry and nativism are the antithesis of the humility and selfless love
taught and exemplified by Jesus.

At
the other end of the political spectrum is Senator Bernie Sanders who is seeking
the Democratic nomination for President, and Nones now represent 25% of Democratic
voters. Sanders is a non-practicing Jew
and avowed democratic socialist who has been popular among young people and Nones. His socialist agenda is an anomaly—if not
anathema—in American politics, but it is more in line with the teachings of
Jesus than are the xenophobic proposals of GOP candidates who are supported by
evangelical Christians.

The
popularity of Trump and Sanders represents a deep dissatisfaction and distrust
of government. Trump is rude and
arrogant and insults those who take issue with his campaign, while Sanders
advocates socialistic proposals beyond the sensibilities of most Democrats. Their popularity represents the dysfunction
of the American religion and politics.
Edmund Burke once warned Americans that in a democracy we forge our own
shackles. The evolution of our religion
and politics indicates we are doing just that.

Christians
in America have differing political orientations. Fundamentalist evangelical Christians promote
traditional “family” values that were never taught by Jesus. Libertarian Christians emphasize civil and
political human rights that were never taught by Jesus, but they also support
providing for the common good, which distinguishes them from Tea Party
neo-libertarians. Socialist Christians promote
government programs that promote economic equality, even when they undermine
economic freedom.

The
traditional values of fundamentalist Christians are derived more from secular
cultural values than from the teachings of Jesus. Libertarian values were popularized by 18th
century Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson who advocated
libertarian democracy, human rights, and the secular rule of law. Socialist values to provide for the common
good are found in all the ancient religions, while libertarian values were not embraced
by Western religions until after the Enlightenment.

Locke
and Jefferson were deists—men of faith who, like modern Nones, rejected
institutional religion. Jefferson considered
the teachings of Jesus “the most sublime moral code ever designed by man,” and he
emphasized the freedoms of religion and speech as the most fundamental of civil
or human rights. It’s too bad that Trump
and his evangelical Christian supporters don’t share those enlightened beliefs;
but then politicians would have a hard time getting elected if they practiced the
humility and self-denying love for others taught by Jesus.

Religion
and politics are inextricably woven together in America. The separation of church and state is taken
from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It prohibits the powers
of the state from establishing or promoting any religion, but does not
require a separation of religion and politics.
Christians who seek to follow Jesus should apply his teachings to political as
well as personal issues. Evangelical
Christians who do otherwise are not following the teachings of Jesus, but the
dictates of a man-made religion, or of deceivers seeking power.

Modern
Christians are challenged to apply the moral imperatives of the greatest commandment to love God and
their neighbors as themselves to political as well as personal matters, and to look beyond their ancient scriptures for the meaning of loving others in a
modern political context. Those living
in libertarian democracies value their freedom as a precious right. To love their neighbors they should liberate the oppressed with human rights
and care for the poor and needy as matters of faith and politics. To do that Christians need to support elected
officials who can balance individual rights with providing for the common good.

Notes
and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics
are: Religion and Reason, December 8,
2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15,
2014; The Greatest Commandment,
January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A
Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15,
2015; Religion and Human Rights,
February 22, 2015; Religion, Human Rights
and National Security, The Kingdom of
God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015; May 10, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting
Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy,
April 12, 2015; Religion, Human Rights
and National Security, May 10, 2015; De
Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May
31, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism,
July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism,
August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual
Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism
Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as
Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The
Evolution of Faith, Religion and Spirituality, February 20, 2016.

2 comments:

The "individual rights" vs. "common good" seems like a useful way to define the split between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters. People love Trump because he looks like an independent, self-made man--a totem of power who doesn't take any money from anybody and who doesn't have to listen to anybody. He is, in that sense, the apotheosis of liberal/libertarian individualism that promises that you are radically independent, free to define who you are. The collectivist/socialist view is, of course, just the opposite: we are interdependent and nobody makes it on his own. I'm sure Sanders has been offering his own critiques of Trump. If I were to try to undercut the foundation of Trump's appeal I would aim at his basic claim that "I am rich and that proves I am independent," via the famous "you didn't build that" speech from Elizabeth Warren's campaign. (Not that this would persuade any Trump supporter anywhere.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AMoBU7lFUA

Warren provides a compelling rational justification--by way of a social contract--for the rich to provide for the common good--that is, for infrastructure than enabled them to get rich. My emphasis has been on the obligation of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims to provide for the common good with an emphasis on providing for the social welfare of the poor and needy.Balancing the protection of individual rights with providing for the common good is more difficult with religion than with secular reason since there is no mention of individual rights or political freedom in the ancient scriptures, while much is said about caring for the poor and needy as the common good. I remain mystified by those evangelical Christians supporting Trump and Cruz who are so committed to government protecting their individual rights and freedom and so opposed to government caring for the poor and needy.